Band 9 model answer
Capital punishment remains one of the most contentious issues in criminal justice. While its supporters regard it as a fitting response to the gravest crimes, I firmly believe that it should be abolished everywhere.
The central objection to the death penalty is its irreversibility. Justice systems, however sophisticated, are administered by human beings and are therefore fallible. Numerous prisoners have been exonerated years after conviction, sometimes through advances in forensic science. Had they been executed, such miscarriages of justice could never have been corrected, and the state would have taken an innocent life in the name of the law.
A second argument concerns the questionable deterrent value of execution. Advocates claim that the threat of death discourages serious crime, yet research consistently shows that regions which retain capital punishment do not enjoy lower murder rates than those which have abandoned it. The factors that drive violent crime, such as desperation, mental illness and social breakdown, are rarely influenced by the severity of punishment alone.
Those in favour of the death penalty often appeal to retribution, arguing that certain crimes are so heinous that only death constitutes justice. I would counter that a civilised society should rise above vengeance. Life imprisonment protects the public just as effectively while preserving the moral authority of the state and leaving room to remedy mistakes.
In conclusion, given the risk of executing the innocent, the absence of a clear deterrent effect and the availability of humane alternatives, I strongly support the complete abolition of capital punishment.
Examiner’s notes
- Takes an unambiguous position in the introduction and sustains it throughout, which examiners reward under Task Response.
- Each body paragraph develops a single, fully explained argument with a concrete consequence rather than a list.
- Uses sophisticated abstract nouns accurately: irreversibility, exonerated, retribution, deterrent value.